All

Doubt it, probably just thrown on by whoever is building up that frame

I can say with full confidence that what is happening in photo example 'C' has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the front or rear center of the bike is or isn't X dimension. What's happening in that picture was done purely for the sake of the photo, and 100% intentional. The photographer was positioned in precisely the spot he is due to the rider knowing what the photo needed to look like and how the rider should be positioned on the bike. I say this in full confidence because it's me.

Am I on Beige Bike?

Would it not be cool if such a casual standing position were the position you plowed and cornered in, if you could design geo to be balanced around it? Of course, you'd want to get your CoG lower, but the idea of not having to strain yourself to give proper weight to the wheel that needs it for traction, instead already being in that position more naturally?

I hope they call it "Swamp Monster"

R-M-R There is a lot in your analysis that is being missed. Years after I posted this thing Vorsprung put this together, which articulated a lot of what I was saying in more objective terms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=72&v=i5R60JHJbxI To start, I just threw Pole out there as a bike that is at least getting semi close. There are a lot of different Pole models. I remember running the math on a bike "another mountain bike website" featured (race bike, not the one in the video above), and noted it to be close. Second, I frankly don't care what other companies are doing...

Does that include the lobster discussion?

Are front and rear lobsters even allowed in the UCI rulebook? This could be a major aero advantage..

I didn't say it's not more aerodynamic. What I insued is that going for or defending the existence of through headset routing because of aerodynamics is, not sorry to say this, idiotic on a mountain bike. As in the gains are SOOOO marginal compared to easy fixes on so many other areas it makes ZERO sense to do it purely for aero gains. And the team mechanics will love them too. So there is no practical reason to go for internal routing, just vanity. On a mountain bike. Also, when it comes to road bikes and aero... Yeah, it matters...

On a road bike, there is no doubt that chasing aero gains makes some sense. Mtb, I’m not sure chasing the aero gains makes a lot of sense. It’s a much more dynamic sport, with constant acceleration, deceleration, standing, sitting, squatting, jumping, slidin, etc. How are you going to chase aero gains while going sideways around a corner, foot out, sliding hooting and hollering……

You put it behind your butt, where it can clean up your wake a little bit.

I've done the science, lobster wins

That's the point, it's for mulleting the bike, where you need to lower the rear axle to retain the original geometry. The easiest way (if possible) is to use a longer shock.

this is one of those simple things where you smack your head and say "of course" it's such a simple mod/tooling for a good outcome. Cascade kicking goals! I'm pretty certain a new DHX2 needs a full service to remove the lower eyelet? Not like some of the old shocks where we could thread them off in a vice.

or the bike is just too long.

I totally agree with the topic in question. I've been a test rider for Pole Bicycles since day one. We've been making our bikes longer on the front and rear on every iteration. We've gotten a pretty good insight on how a small tweak in the geometry can have major effects on the bikes handling, since we are able to test on a wide range of options. Before actually riding the bikes we've always tried to measure the weight distribution with 2 scales under the tires, but that is just to get rough statistics on the changes. We mostly base...

If you keep all other variables constant (eg. CS length, HT angle, stem length) then increasing reach should have the effect of putting more of the riders weight on the front wheel. The effect is pretty dramatic because the human head weighs around 5kg and this weight is high up/furthest forwards. This is why small changes can have such a big effect. The Mondraker Forward Geometry with the zero reach stem is an extreme example of this thought, but I have yet to see anybody running the zero reach stems in real life. Even with a super long front end...

100% agree. Aggressive riders trying to go fast (and not just racers) or anyone who wants a bike that actually handles need longer chainstays on their bikes. There will always be the odd ball that rides a little differently and somehow able to make short chainstays work. A lot of riders that still thinks short chainstays win don't know how to manual or just haven't tried a proper bike with proper balanced geometry. Even less aggressive riders on 'trail' bikes can benefit from longer chainstays, since the whole short chainstay thing has gone way too far - we shouldn't be...

i fully support this statement.

Totally agree